People of the Phil Va Ocfemia

7/31/2019 People of the Phil Va Ocfemia

1/10

Republic of the Philipppines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 126135. October 25, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.ALBERTO OCFEMIA y MAIMOT,Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

GONZAGA-REYES,J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On September 26, 1995, Alberto Ocfemia y Maimot was chargedwith the crime of murder, as defined and penalized under Article

248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

That on or about the 22nd day of September 1995 in the City ofMakati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill and withtreachery and evident premeditation did then and there willfully,unlawfully and feloniously stabbed one Miriam Reyes with a knifeon the different parts of her body thereby inflicting mortal wounds

upon the latter which directly caused her untimely

death.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The accused-appellant was accused of stabbing his maid, MiriamReyes, 16 years old, who was dead upon arrival at the Rizal

Medical Center in Pasig, where she was brought after the stabbingincident on September 22, 1995. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Upon arraignment on November 13, 1995, accused-appellant,assisted by counsel, and after being informed of the consequencesof his plea, pleaded guilty to the offense charged. On November

17, 1995, the Court issued an order, in accordance with Section 3,

Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, setting the case for hearing so asto conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and fullcomprehension of the consequences of his plea of guilty. Theprosecution was ordered to prove the guilt of the accused-

appellant and his precise degree of culpability.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The prosecution presented Margie Ocfemia, the live-in partner of
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn1http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn1


2/10

the accused-appellant Alberto. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The testimony of Margie Ocfemia was summarized by the trialcourt as follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

She testified that on November 22, 1995, at 10:00 in the

morning, in her house at No. 14 Herrera Street, Group 9, Zone14, Pembo, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City, their maid, Miriam Reyes,

16 years old, single, complained to her that accused AlbertoOcfemia, touched her (Miriam Reyes) private part. She confronted

accused Alberto Ocfemia. When confronted, accused admittedtouching the private part of Miriam Reyes. When night came,

accused talked with Miriam Reyes, asking Miriam Reyes not to tellof what he (accused Ocfemia) did to her, to her brother and the

brothers of Margie. Miriam Reyes refused, telling accused that shehas to tell what he (accused) did to her, to her mga kapatid. Laterthat evening, accused Alberto Ocfemia, told the members of thehousehold to go to sleep. They all complied. While Margie was

lying, she noticed that accused Ocfemia was taking coffee,smoking and roaming around the house. At 11:00 that evening,

while Miriam Reyes, the maid, was lying on her side (nakagilid)and asleep, accused stabbed Miriam several times. Miriam

shouted asking for help. Margie brought Miriam Reyes to thehospital, arriving in the hospital at 12:30 in the morning. The

doctor who attended Miriam Reyes tried to save her life, but at12:45 in the morning, she passed away.[2]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The prosecution also presented Dr. Ferdinand Gonzalez of RizalMedical Center, Dr. Emmanuel Aranas, Medico-Legal Officer of thePNP Crime Laboratory, who conducted medico-legal examination

on the cadaver of the victim, and Lorna Reyes, the sister ofMiriam, who testified on the expenses for the hospital, wake and

the interment. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Before the reception of the evidence of the defense, accused-appellant through counsel filed a motion praying that his plea ofguilty be withdrawn as it was improvidently made. The motionwas granted and the accused-appellant entered a plea of not

guilty. The accused-appellant thereafter testified in his defensestating, in the words of the court, as follows:

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

He testified that on September 22, 1995, in the morning, he wasat his place of work as cantero at Hemady Street, Quezon City,

starting working (sic) thereat from 7:00 in the morning up to 6:00in the evening. He left his place of work at 7:00 in the evening

because he waited for his salary. From his place of work at

Hemady Street, Quezon City, he boarded a vehicle for Cubao andfrom Cubao, he boarded another vehicle, going to Crossing,arriving at his home at around 11:00 in the evening because ofheavy traffic. Upon reaching home, he met his wife Margie and

maid Miriam Reyes. Upon arrival at his house, he sat on a bench.While sitting on a bench, his wife approached him, telling him that

their maid, Miriam Reyes will be leaving the following day. Heasked his maid why she is leaving. After asking his maid why sheis leaving, he went out of his house. He cannot tell in what place

he went, all that he noticed was he was far away from home and
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn2


3/10

noticed that he was near the chapel of the Mormons in Tambac,Taguig. He does not know how he got there. He cannot even tellwhether he took a ride in going to that place. All that he couldrecall was, the fare in going to that chapel and going back, was

P1.50. When he realized that he was in front of Mormons Chapel,he went back home by boarding a jeepney. On his way home, hepassed by his brother Oscars house which is a block away fromhis house. In his brothers house, his brother asked him what hisproblem was. He did not answer because he was thinking why hewas far from his house. His brother mentioned to him somethinglike Wala na patay na and referred to him as the one who killedMiriam. At the time he was talking with his brother, he did not

know who killed Miriam. At his brothers house he was arrested bythe police and brought to his house. At home, he noticed that hishouse was magulo. His wife was not at home. He pleaded guilty

because at that time, his mind was confused.[3]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

After his testimony, the accused-appellant through counsel prayedthat he be subjected to psychiatric examination. The court

ordered counsel to file his motion in writing. The written motionfiled on May 20, 1996, states: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

01. THAT after herein accused terminated his direct and crossexaminations, the undersigned counsel requested for the issuance

of an order from the Honorable Court that the accused besubjected to a psychiatric examination; this was upon themanifestation of the undersigned counsel that they have

envisioned to interpose INSANITY as theirdefense;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

0.2 THAT the Honorable Court called the attention of theundersigned counsel that this should have been known to theCourt earlier in order that a reversed trial should have been

undertaken; vis-a-vis the observation of the Honorable Court, thedefense admitted that it failed to do so, but sought refuge underthe mantle of SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE; and the Honorable Courtdirected the filing of the instant motion;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

0.3 THAT this motion finds justification on the fact that during thestabbing, he appeared to have acted without the least

discernment and that he was unable to perceive and to exerciseproper judgment at the time of the commission of the act in

issue.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

0.4 THAT it is respectfully requested that an order be issueddirecting the examination of the accused by the NATIONAL

CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH; and, pending the requestedexamination and the submission of the report thereon, it is

respectfully requested that the proceedings in this case be held inabeyance.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

0.5 THAT this is not intended to delay the administration of justiceon this case, but only because of the foregoing reason.[4]


The prosecution opposed the above-stated motion alleging inter
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn4http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn3


4/10

alia, that:

xxx xxx xxx chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

5) That there has been a complete absence of Evidence that thereis a history of insanity on the part of the accused prior to the

commission of the offense;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6) There has been no oral or documentary evidence to lay the

predicate that the accused was previouslyinsane;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

7) That a person is presumed to be of sound mind(sane);chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

8) That the defense of insanity which the accused would now putup as his defense is completely opposite his earlier defense of

denial and alibi when he testified in Court last April 22,1996;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

9) Consequently, the accused cannot interpose the defense ofalibi and denial and at the same time claim that he is insanebecause the defense of insanity admits the commission of the

offense only that he committed it when he was insane.[5]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The trial court denied the motion of the accused-appellant that hebe examined by a psychiatrist, reasoning that:


This Court does not find merit in the plea of the accused, thru hiscounsel, that he should be examined by a Psychiatrist to

determine his mental condition at the time of the commission of

the offense, because:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1) When arraigned, accused assisted by counsel, voluntarilypleaded guilty;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

2) When arraigned his plea of guilt, this Court conducted asearching inquiry to determine voluntariness and full

comprehension of the consequences of his plea, still accusedinsisted in pleading guilty;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3) At the time of arraignment accused appeared be of soundmental condition; understood the nature of the charge against

him, and could intelligently enter a plea, otherwise, this Court will

order the suspension of arraignment;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

4) Accused already testified in his defense; and, during histestimony, this Court finds no justification to submit him for

psychiatric examination;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

5) Moreover, before his arraignment, and during the hearing,there was no slightest insinuation by accused and counsel that he

was insane at the time of the commission of the offense;


5/10

andchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6) It was only after accused testified that he would like to bementally examined.[6]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The trial court handed down its judgment[7]dated September 4,

1996, finding the accused-appellant guilty of murder as chargedin the information, qualified by treachery, and aggravated by

evident premeditation and the accused-appellants privaterelations with the victim, who was his maid. The dispositive

portion of the judgment reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Alberto Ocfemia y Maimotguilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime ofmurder as charged in the Information, qualified by treachery,

attended by two generic aggravating circumstances of evidentpremeditation and accuseds private relations with the victim, thelatter being his maid and pursuant to Article 248, in relation to

Article 62, part. 3 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R. A.7659, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death, and

indemnify Lorna Reyes, the sum of P27,000.000; and the heirs ofMiriam Reyes, the sum of P50,000.00, plus

costs.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The case is now before us on automatic review.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In his appellants brief, the accused raises the followingassignment of errors:

Achanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ACCUSEDTO BE EXAMINED BY THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MENTALHEALTH TO ESTABLISH THE MENTAL CONDITION OF THEACCUSED DURING AND AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE

CRIME.

Bchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ACCUSEDAS HAVING FEIGNED INSANITY.[8]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

which were jointly discussed being closely entertwined.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Counsel for accused-appellant submits that there were indicationsof a mental dysfunction as personally observed and perceived byhim, which prompted the accused-appellant to change the plea of

guilty to a plea of non-guilty, and that because the accused-appellant continuously showed signs of mental infirmity during hisdirect examination, he was prompted to request the court that the

accused-appellant be allowed to undergo a psychiatric
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn6


6/10

examination. Before the trial court could declare that the accused-appellant was feigning insanity, a psychiatric study, it is claimed,

should be made on his alleged mental malady.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The Solicitor General asks for an affirmance of the judgment ofconviction. He claims that it is too late in the day for the accused-

appellant to question the denial of his motion for psychiatricexamination as he rested his case after the denial of the motion

and submitted the issue of his guilt or non-guilt for the resolutionof the trial court. Moreover, there is no showing, even in the

slightest extent, that appellant was in any way insane or mentallyimpaired prior to or on or about the time the offense was

committed. Further, a psychiatric examination now would notserve any useful purpose anymore considering that the stabbingincident took place almost three years ago. With respect to the

evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant, theSolicitor General seeks an affirmance of the finding of the trialcourt on the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the same.


In his Reply Brief, the accused-appellant, now represented by thePublic Attorneys Office, stresses that the signs of mental

dysfunction, as personally observed by his private counsel, duringthe direct examination, indicate the importance of the requestedpsychiatric examination to prove the exempting circumstance of

insanity. The reply brief prays for an acquittal.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

In asking for a reversal of the judgment of conviction, accused-appellant assails the rejection by the trial court of his request to

be subjected to mental examination, thus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

When the accused manifested signs of mental dysfunctions such

as, his changeable dispositions during the proceedings as shownby his insistence to a plea of guilty, only for him to change this

plea to that of not guilty; his demeanor and manifestations beforethe undersigned counsel showing his incoherence and flight of

ideas during those times that counsel had the chance to interviewthe accused; his lack of knowledge where he was at the time of

the incident as testified to by the accused himself during his directexamination; his lack of knowledge as to who killed the victim

when he was confronted by his brother Cesar on the night of thestabbing; and, has lack of concern on what was happening duringthe proceedings, made and constrained his counsel to entertain

the serious suspicion and observation that accused must besuffering from a certain degree of mental defect. And, such defect

must have impaired and affected his voluntariness in giving his

plea of guilty. Further, such mental infirmity must have deniedhim that comprehension of a normal individual of the

consequences of his plea of guilty.[9]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

and claims that the trial courts declaration that he was feigninginsanity was not proper where no psychiatric study was made on

his alleged mental malady. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We are not convinced by the accused-appellants submission.


7/10

There is no cogent justification to reverse the finding of the trialcourt that accused-appellant was of sound mental condition at the

time of his arraignment, and that during the hearing where theaccused-appellant testified in his defense, there was no slightestinsinuation by accused-appellant and counsel that he was insane

at the time of the commission of the offense.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Notably, accused-appellant did not question the denial of hismotion for psychiatric examination and simply rested his case.


The belated perception that accused-appellant could be insanewas based on the observation made by his own counsel of his

statements and demeanor at the witness stand during his directtestimony, specifically his changeable dispositions during the

proceedings as shown by his insistence on a plea of guilty only forhim to change this plea to that of not guilty, his lack of knowledge

of where he was at the time of the stabbing incident and as towho killed the victim. Counsel claims that the accused-appellant

showed incoherence and flight of ideas during those times that hehad the chance to interview the accused-appellant.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We are not impressed. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an insaneperson is exempt for criminal liability unless he has acted during alucid interval. Under Article 80 of the Civil Code, the presumption

is that every man is sane; anyone who pleads the exemptingcircumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving that he was

completely deprived of reason when he committed the crime

charged.[10]Mere abnormality of his mental faculties doesnot exclude imputability.[11]It is equally well-settled that

proof of the accused-appellants insanity must relate to thetime preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the

offense with which he is charged; the mental illness thatcould diminish his ill power should relate to the time

immediately preceding or during the commission of thecrime.[12]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

We reject accused-appellants insistence that the trial courtcommitted reversible error in denying his request to be subjectedto psychiatric examination. To begin with, the defense of insanitywas not raised at the earliest opportunity; it was raised only after

the accused-appellant had testified in his defense. He declaredthat he reached home from work at around 11:00 oclock in the

evening of September 22, 1995 and was informed by his wife thatMiriam was killed. He testified that he did not know who killed

her. On cross-examination, he stated that at the time he pleadedguilty upon arraignment, he was confused and did not know

anything about the case.[13]The invocation of denial and

alibi as his defense indicates that he was in full control of

his mental faculties. It has been held that a shift in theoryby the defense, from denial and alibi to a plea of insanity,

made apparently after realizing the futility of his earlier
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn10http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn12http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn12http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn12http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn12http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn11http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn10


8/10

defense, is a clear indication that his defense is a mere

concoction.[14]Moreover, the eyewitness account of theaccused-appellants common-law wife of five (5) years

never mentioned any indication that the accused-appellantcould not have been in his right mind when he committed

the crime, and renders the theory of insanity doubtful. The

eyewitness stated that prior to stabbing the victim, theaccused-appellant told the members of the household to go

to sleep while he walked around the room, smoking and

drinking coffee, that the accused-appellant also told Margie

not to tell his brothers and the brother of Miriam that shetouched the private parts of the victim. Such actuations are

hardly the actuations of a man not in full possession of hismental faculties. Although the accused-appellant testified

that he could not recall how he reached the Mormon chapel

in Taguig, after leaving his house at around 11:00 oclockp.m. on September 22, 1995, and could not recall at whattime he reached the house of his brother, who informed

him that Miriam was stabbed, he failed to ask who was thekiller and merely surrendered to the policemen.[15]Weagree with appellee that his professed inability to recall

events before and after the stabbing incident does not

necessarily indicate an aberrant mind but is more indicativeof a concocted excuse to exculpate himself. We find no

cogent reason to disturb the trial courts conclusion that the

accused-appellant was feigning insanity to justify his

application for mental examination when he testified thatwhen he left home in the evening of September 22, 1995,

he was confused and lost his direction. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The fact that the accused-appellant originally pleaded guilty and

thereafter changed his plea to not guilty does not support a claimthat there were indications of mental dysfunction. It is not

uncommon for an accused to change his plea. In this case, uponhis own motion, the court allowed the accused to withdraw his

plea of guilt and enter a plea of not guilty. Hence, an examinationas to the voluntariness of his plea of guilt is no longer in order.


As above-stated, we are convinced that the trial court did not errin convicting the accused-appellant of murder qualified by

treachery. The eyewitness testified that Miriam was stabbedseveral times while she was lying down on her side and asleep.The crime was committed employing means or method in the

execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its

execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defensewhich the offended party might make.[16]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

However, we do not agree that the crime was committed withevident premeditation. The rule is that the aggravating

circumstance of evident premeditation is satisfactorily establishedonly if it is proved that the defendant had deliberately planned tocommit the crime and had persistently and continuously followedit notwithstanding that he had ample time to allow his conscience
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn14


9/10

to overcome the determination of his will, if he had so desiredafter meditation and reflection. This circumstance is not provenwhere there is no evidence, as in this case, as to the time when

the defendant decided to kill the victim. Nowhere is there anindication in the testimony of the lone eyewitness, as to when the

accused-appellant decided to stab the victim, or as to the timethat lapsed after the accused-appellant planned to kill the

deceased up to the time that the killing took place, that wouldestablish that there was sufficient or substantial period of time

that lapsed after he conceived of the idea of attacking thedeceased and the actual perpetration of the crime. The element ofsufficient time is necessary to show that his decision is the result

of the calculation, or reflection, or persistent attempt.[17]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Neither is there present an aggravating circumstance of private

relations of accused-appellant with the offended party arisingfrom the fact that the victim was the maid of the accused-

appellant. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall betaken into consideration only when the offended party is the

spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adoptedbrother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the

offender.[18]Article 62 paragraph 3, cited by the trial court,is not in point. It states: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Article 62. Effects of attendance of mitigating or aggravatingcircumstances and of habitual delinquency. Mitigating or

aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall betaken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing

the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

xxx xxx xxx chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from themoral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations withthe offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only

serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals,accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are

attendant.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

It is clear that Article 62 merely states the rule for the applicationof penalties with respect to, among others, the aggravating

circumstance of relationship, as this is defined in Article 15, bylimiting the effect of the attendance of such aggravating

circumstance to the principal, accomplice or accessory to whomsuch circumstance is attendant. Article 62 does not purport todefine or establish an aggravating or mitigating circumstance

arising from the offenders private relations with the offendedparty such as the relationship of a master to a maid. It merely

specifies the effect of an attendant circumstance of relationship,as this is defined in Article 15. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Accordingly, the crime is murder with no aggravatingcircumstance which can be appreciated to increase the penalty.

The imposable penalty under Article 248 as amended by RA 7659is reclusion perpetua to death. In the absence of either
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn17http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn17http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn17http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn18http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct2000/126135.php#_edn17


10/10

aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty prescribed is

reclusion perpetua.[19]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the judgment finding Alberto Ocfemia y Maimotguilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualifiedby treachery, is affirmed with the modification that the penalty

imposed is reclusion perpetua. The awards of P27,000.00 asactual damages and the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages are

also affirmed. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza,Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, JJ., concur. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Kapunan, J., on leave.

People of the Phil Va Ocfemia

Documents

Transcript of People of the Phil Va Ocfemia